WALES BILL (Hansard, 18 April 1978)

§ Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)
On a point of order, Sir Myer. We have had a list of the provisional selection of amendments for today and tomorrow. My question relates to the selection of those amendments to be debated after 5 p.m. tomorrow.
In the course of the Scotland Bill a decision was taken by the House about inserting a minimum requirement into the referendum. This was endorsed by the House on a subsequent occasion, and the matter has gone to the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor has said that the Government accept the amendment.
The danger in the discussions that take place in this Committee is that, if Amendment No. 325 on Clause 83 is not reached, we will not have an opportunity to insert a minimum requirement into the referendum for Wales. May we have an indication, through you, Sir Myer, from the Government or from the Business Committee that we shall at least have a decision on this matter, or preferably a debate? This is essential, because the Government are accepting a decision that the House has taken on this matter on a similar Bill.

§ The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Myer Galpern)
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) is referring to Amendment No. 325, which obviously has been selected and which appears on the list. The question of the speed with which we shall deal with the preceding amendments is entirely in the hands of hon. Members. If they decide not to deal with the preceding amendments, no doubt Amendment No. 325 will be reached. The Chair cannot guide or regulate the speed with which hon. Members will deal with amendments. Therefore, I do not see that this is a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. In view of the fact that it would be absolutely ludicrous for a 40 per cent. position to exist in the Scotland Bill and not in the Wales Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because it is quite right for the Welsh and the Scots people to have the same proposition in front of them and it would be ludicrous if they did not—may I ask whether the Government have indicated that they will bring forward an amendment in line with the will and wishes of the majority of hon. Members expressed on the Scotland Bill? If the House of Commons wishes to change its mind on the Wales Bill, it is perfectly entitled to do so. However, the Government should take account of the expressed will of the House of Commons on the Scotland Bill and bring forward a Government amendment just in case we do not reach the Back-Bench amendment on the list today.

The First Deputy Chairman
Fortunately or unfortunately, I am not a confidant of the Government. What they are proposing is beyond my knowledge. It is for the Government to decide; it is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Leo Abse (Pontypool)
I appreciate the limitations imposed on you, Sir Myer. I know, however, that you will appreciate that nothing will arouse greater indignation in Wales than the notion that, by stealth or conspiracy, a situation has been created by which Parliament cannot express its wishes as it expressed them on the Scotland Bill, to the effect that, unless 40 per cent. of the population of Wales wishes to have devolution, devolution will not occur.
Although you have said that it is up to the Committee, if it wishes, not to speak at length on all the amendments which have been tabled, we know that, given a proliferation of amendments on minutiae tabled by Plaid Cymru, and given the lack of initiative on the part of the Government in bringing a business motion before the Committee, it is apparent to all that a conspiracy is afoot which is an abuse of the Committee. This prevents the will of the Committee from being expressed, and it will have the effect that, using the weapon of boredom, a small fanatical minority will be able to impose its view on the Welsh people.
281 I am asking you, Sir Myer, to protect the Committee from this abuse, and it is within the Government's hands to refute the charge that they are privy to what is taking place. If they wish to refute that charge, it is open to them to table a business motion and to put it before the Committee.
Now that the Chief Whip is present, I would ask you, Sir Myer, in order to protect the business of the Committee, to invite my right hon. Friend to tell the Committee what steps he is taking to make certain, not merely that there should be a debate—because that is not enough—but that there should be an open debate on the subject of the 40 per cent. The Government should give their reasons for the present situation and should explain why so many fears are being expressed on this topic. They should explain why we are being denied the opportunity of being able to say, on behalf of the Welsh people, that in no circumstances will a small persistent minority bore Wales to death. We should not allow a small group of people in Wales to trick the Principality into devolution.

The First Deputy Chairman
Hon. Members are fully aware that the Chair can protect the Committee only within the ambit of the Standing Orders. Nothing is being done here in the provisional selection of amendments which has departed from what has been laid down by Parliament. Therefore, to put the matter mildly, it is beyond my understanding to allege that there has been a conspiracy.
It is quite conceivable that hon. Members may decide to ignore the other amendments and simply go on to Amendment No. 325. I do not know what hon. Members will do; it is for them to decide. But there may have been some argument if it had been said that Amendment No. 325 was not included. It is on the Notice Paper according to the decision by the Business Committee, and that is where it will stay so far as the Chair is concerned.

§ Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)
On a point of order, Sir Myer. I appreciate that you are in considerable difficulty—

The First Deputy Chairman
I am not in any difficulty.

§ Sir R. Gower
Perhaps I worded that badly.

The First Deputy Chairman
It is hon. Members who seem to be in difficulty—or who are acting as though they are.

§ Sir R. Gower
The Committee is certainly in great difficulty. Whatever the merits of the 40 per cent. argument, I believe that the two Bills, the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, are of great concern to the United Kingdom as a whole. I respectfully submit that it would be most unwise of Parliament to have a different basis of decision in the case of Scotland from that of Wales. On that score I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
Is it not possible for the Government now to take the opportunity to give an assurance that, at some stage before this point is reached, they will bring forward proposals to enable the Committee to examine the matter objectively?

§ Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)
May I raise a rather different point of order, Sir Myer? The document that is before the Committee is headed by you, Sir Myer, "Provisional selection of amendments". That means that before tomorrow you will have the power to alter the selection in the light of representations which may be made to you. In view of the crucial importance of Amendment No. 325 and the fact that your provisional selection shows that there are 17 amendments which come before even the group of amendments of which No. 325 is one, may I submit that you should reconsider your provisional selection to take account of the submissions which have been made to you from both sides of the Committee?
Secondly, may I ask that in reconsidering your provisional selection for tomorrow you should afford to the Minister of State, Privy Council Office, the Patronage Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales, or to one of them, the opportunity of submitting to you reasons why you should not deviate from your provisional selection of amendments?
Finally, may I ask about a procedural point. If you, Sir Myer, decide to leave the provisional selection for tomorrow as it is today, is it possible as a matter of 283 procedure for hon. Members, having heard the Government Front Bench and having listened to other hon. Members, even supposing that we did not reach in debate Amendment No. 325, to vote on that amendment?

The First Deputy Chairman
If the hon. Gentleman is correct in believing that the Committee feels strongly about this matter, there is a simple way round the situation. They should get the agreement of the Committee not to discuss any amendment until we reach Amendment No. 325. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no question of a departure in dropping amendments which have already been selected. The amendments which have been selected are strictly in order and are as important and as vital to those who have tabled them as is Amendment No. 325. It is a novel idea, and certainly one that would never be accepted by the Chair, to suggest that we should drop the amendments that precede Amendment No. 325 in order to allow Amendment No. 325 to be dealt with.

§ Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)
I rise in the hope that the Government will feel able to assist the Committee at this stage. We do not want to take any more time than we have to on this matter because we are again beginning this debate an hour late on a timetable day.
We know that the Government have not tabled an amendment of their own dealing with the referendum, whereas they did not seek to defend Clause 1 or Clause 39, and they have tabled their own amendment in regard to the separation of any referendum, if it is held, from a General Election. But they are entitled under the timetable motion, if they so wish after the guillotine has fallen, to move an amendment that now stands in the name of any hon. Member. I am certain that the Government would like to debate Amendment No. 325, as would the whole Committee.
The Government have acknowledged the desirability of making the provisions of the Wales Bill similar to those in the Scotland Bill; otherwise they would not have tabled some of the amendments which they tabled to the Scotland Bill in their own name and would have sought to defend Clauses 1 and 39. I ask the 284 Government to make a statement so that we can make progress now. I ask them to say that in the unhappy event that Amendment No. 325 is not reached tomorrow evening, they will give an undertaking to move Amendment No. 325 so that the Committee may vote on it.

The First Deputy Chairman
The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that it would be in order for the Government to move, after the guillotine has fallen, Amendment No. 325. But whether they will take that course is beyond my knowledge. There seems to be no response from the Government Front Bench, so far as I can see. We do not want to spend the whole of our time dealing with points of order and still not reach Amendment No. 325.

§ The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith)
Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. It was not possible for me to rise earlier as you were on your feet answering the point of order made previously. I recognise the nature of the concern that is being expressed. I undertake that the Government will consider carefully the points that have been made.

The First Deputy Chairman
I am sure that hon. Members will be prepared to accept that undertaking. They have the whole day to consider the matter. They have heard all the points of order. Fortunately, I shall not be in the Chair tomorrow when these points of order are further raised.

§ Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth)
Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I assure you and the whole Committee that there has been no conspiracy between the Plaid Cymru Bench and the Government Bench or, as far as I am aware, between other Benches. Amendments have been tabled which, as you rightly said, Sir Myer, are in order. Of the amendments that have been selected there are only six in the names of Plaid Cymru Members. There is no intention on our part to delay debate or, if we could, to spin out debate on irrelevancies.
The amendments raise important matters of principle relating to the powers of the Assembly and the Secretary of State. There is the basic issue of the 285 dating of the Assembly and the holding of a referendum.
As for the argument raised by the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse), we as a party are always anxious for parity with Scotland in all matters. However, I see no justification in arguing that because the 40 per cent. clause has been inserted in the Scotland Bill it should go into the Wales Bill. The proposals in the Scotland Bill are for legislative powers to go to the Scottish Assembly whereas the Welsh proposals are for an executive Assembly. In that sense the Bills are essentially different. It does not follow that because a certain amendment of ballot-rigging effect was inserted in the one referendum it should be inserted in another.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I hope that hon. Members will bear in mind the time that we have already spent on these points of order. They have, of course, served a useful purpose. The Minister of State has been present and he has promised to consider the whole situation. Surely, it would be better to leave these points of order and to proceed with the rest of the business.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)
Would it be possible, Sir Myer, for my selfish benefit, to publish with the amendments that have been selected the times when you will be in the Chair?

The First Deputy Chairman
I shall oblige the hon. Gentleman with that information on consideration of payment.

§ Mr. Ioan Evans
I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee, Sir Myer, and I appreciate that the Minister has given an undertaking to consider providing the opportunity of having a debate and vote on the issue. However, when shall we be informed of the Government's decision? It would be wrong for us to have only a last-minute indication. We should be given as early an indication as possible—at least early tomorrow. Surely, that is a reasonable request.

§ Mr. Gerry Fowler (The Wrekin)
I, too, do not wish to delay the Committee, Sir Myer, but I must draw your attention to the danger of proceeding each day in 286 this way when dealing with points of order, which presents a one-sided view. I wish to make it clear that not everyone on the Labour Benches shares the view that it is desirable to have a vote on the amendment without a debate. In my view, the Bill differs significantly from the Scotland Bill and does not have the same constitutional implications.

Several Hon. Members
rose—

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. We shall not have a debate on that issue.